alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001029528
<NAME> HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES CAPITAL TRUST I
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-04-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                   103,093
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 103,093
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    100,000
<COMMON>                                         3,093
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   103,093
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,781
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,547
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    234
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                234
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       234
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
1

Motions Granted; Appeals Reinstated, and Order filed June 5, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-00976-CV

NO. 14-11-00980-CV

____________

HERITAGE GULF COAST PROPERTIES, INC. and SUMER S. PINGLIA, 

Appellants/Cross-Appellees

V.

SANDALWOOD APARTMENTS, INC., JAIKISHIN S. BHAGIA,

and NANIK S. BHAGIA, Appellees/Cross-Appellants

On Appeal from the 11th District Court 

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2008-64342

O R D E R

Appellants/cross-appellees. Heritage Gulf Coast Properties, Inc. and Sumer S. 

Pinglia, filed motions to disqualify Kevin D. Jewell, Allison C. Williams, and the firm of 

Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Aughtry, counsel for Sandalwood Apartments, 

Inc., Jaikishin S. Bhagia, and Nanik S. Bhagia. Appellees/cross-appellants filed a 

response in opposition to the motions.
2

Because it appeared to this court that there were disputed issues of fact that required

an evidentiary hearing, we abated the appeals and remanded the cause to the trial court for 

a hearing and ruling on the motions. The trial court conducted the hearing on April 9, 

2012. On April 13, 2012, the trial court signed an order granting the motions to disqualify 

counsel for Sandalwood Apartments, Inc., Jaikishin S. Bhagia, and Nanik S. Bhagia. The 

trial court also made findings of fact and conclusions of law. A record from the hearing 

was filed on May 8, 2012. On May 30, 2012, a supplemental clerk’s record containing the 

trial court’s findings, the order granting the motion, and other documents related to the 

disqualification motion was filed. 

Accordingly, we order the appeals REINSTATED. The motions to disqualify 

counsel for Sandalwood Apartments, Inc., Jaikishin S. Bhagia, and Nanik S. Bhagia filed 

in this court are GRANTED pursuant to the trial court’s ruling. 

Appellants’ briefs on behalf of the Heritage appellants and the Sandalwood 

appellants shall be due on or before July 6, 2012. 

PER CURIAM
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOHN DOE

,

Appellant,

v.

JFK MEDICAL CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and

HSS SYSTEMS

, LLC

Appellee s

.

No. 4D 22

- 2032

[ January 12, 2023 ]

Appeal of nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth

Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Bradley E. Harper , Judge; L.T. Case

No. 2018CA 101 77

.

Angela M. Nieves and Joel B. Rothman of Sriplaw, P.A., Boca Raton , for

appellant.

Ryan C. Hardy of Spencer Fane LLP, St. L ouis, Missouri, and Drew P.

O’Mall e y of Spencer Fane LLP, Tampa, for appellees.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, C IKLIN and G ERBER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support 

Program Evaluation Report

Document Number: OCAS-PER-025 

Effective Date: 9/28/2007 

Revision No. 0 

Huntington Pilot Plant TBD Revision Page 1 of 1 

Author: Signature on file Date: 9/27/2007 _ Dave Allen, HP Team Leader 

Approval: Signature on file Date: 9/27/2007_ J.W. Neton, Associate Director for Science 

Supersedes: None 

RECORD OF ISSUE/REVISIONS 

ISSUE 

AUTHORIZATION 

DATE 

9/28/2007

EFFECTIVE 

DATE 

9/28/2007 

REV. NO. 

0 

DESCRIPTION 

New document to determine which 

previously completed claims require 

evaluation for the effect of revising the 

Huntington PP TBD. 

1.0 Description

A Technical Basis Document (ORAUT-TKBS-0004) was approved for the Huntington 

Pilot Plant on 10/31/2003. This document was revised on 1/16/2004 to add external 

electron dose. 

2.0 Issue Evaluation

The revision to the Huntington Pilot Plant TBD provides an estimate of shallow dose 

(electron dose) that did not appear in the original version. This dose is used primarily for 

skin dose estimates but also for breast and testes. Claims in which the external target 

organ is skin, breast, or testes may be affected if they were completed prior to revision 1 

of the TBD. 

3.0 Plan for Resolution or Corrective Action

There was one Huntington Pilot Plant claims completed for the above target organs with 

a probability of causation below 50% prior to 1/16/2004. NIOSH is requesting that this 

claim be returned for a new dose estimate. A new dose reconstruction will be completed 

using the latest revision to the Huntington Pilot Plant TBD.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference into the Company's
previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-49205,
333-64779, 333-69273, 333-39862, 333-39870, and 333-54128) of our report dated
January 22, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements as of
December 31, 2000 and the year then ended included in the Tucker Anthony Sutro
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000.


                                             /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York
March 21, 2001
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 

November 8, 2018

Order 

Clerk

November 8, 2018

158662(18)

TYRONE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

SC: 158662

v COA: 344166

Gratiot CC: 17-000223-AH

ST. LOUIS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 

WARDEN,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it is 

DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable 

for filing fees.

Appellant is not required to pay an initial partial fee. However, for the appeal to 

continue, within 21 days of the date of this order, appellant shall submit a copy of this order

and refile the copy of the pleadings returned with this order as acknowledgement of his

responsibility to pay the $375.00 filing fee. Failure to do so shall result in the appeal being 

administratively dismissed.

If appellant timely complies with this order, monthly payments shall be made to the 

Department of Corrections in the amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to appellant’s 

account until the payments equal the balance due of $375.00. That amount shall then be 

remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8), appellant shall not file a new civil action or appeal 

in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to appellant and return 

a copy of appellant’s pleadings with this order.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the quarterly report
of Cemtrex, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2014, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Saagar Govil, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge and belief:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | /s/ Renato Dela Rama.          
| | -------------------------------
| | Renato Dela Rama               
| | Vice President of Finance      
| | and Principal Financial Officer



Dated: October 2, 2014
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7196

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

TIMOTHY GADSON, a/k/a Tanaka, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District 

Judge. (4:01-cr-00817-CWH-1) 

Submitted: September 22, 2009 Decided: November 3, 2009 

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Timothy Gadson, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, 

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Timothy Gadson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 

U.S.C. § 3582 (2006). In criminal cases, the defendant must 

file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of 

judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); see United States v. 

Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 3582 

proceeding is criminal in nature and ten-day appeal period 

applies). With or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable 

neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an extension 

of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. 

P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 

1985). 

The district court entered its order denying the 

motion for reduction of sentence on May 6, 2009. Gadson filed 

the notice of appeal, at the latest, on June 5, 2009, after the 

ten-day period expired but within the thirty-day excusable 

neglect period. Because the notice of appeal was filed within 

the excusable neglect period, we remand the case to the district 

court for the court to determine whether Gadson has shown 

excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the 

ten-day appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then 

be returned to this court for further consideration. 

REMANDED
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5884 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to punish unlawful obstruction of 

the enforcement of the laws of the United States by State officials, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 18, 2018 

Mr. KING of Iowa (for himself and Mr. GOSAR) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to punish unlawful 

obstruction of the enforcement of the laws of the United 

States by State officials, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mayor Libby Schaaf 

5 Act of 2018’’. 

6 SEC. 2. OBSTRUCTION OF THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE 

7 LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. 

8 (a) OBSTRUCTION OF THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE

9 LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.—Chapter 73 of title 18, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5884 IH

1 United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 

2 1510 the following: 

3 ‘‘§ 1510A. Obstruction of the enforcement of the laws 

4 of the United States 

5 ‘‘(a) It shall be unlawful for any officer, employee, 

6 or agent of a State or political subdivision thereof to ob7 struct, hinder, delay, or otherwise impede the enforcement 

8 of the laws of the United States, or to attempt to do so. 

9 Whoever violates this section shall be fined under this title 

10 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. 

11 ‘‘(b) As used in this section— 

12 ‘‘(1) the term ‘obstruct, hinder, delay, or other13 wise impede the enforcement of the laws of the 

14 United States’ shall include the purposeful broadcast 

15 by an officer, employee, or agent of a State or polit16 ical subdivision thereof of information relating to 

17 any imminent action by a Federal law enforcement 

18 officer or agent without regard to the manner in 

19 which the broadcaster became aware of the immi20 nent action; and 

21 ‘‘(2) the term ‘State’ means any of the several 

22 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth 

23 of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession 

24 of the United States.’’. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5884 IH

1 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

2 for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item 

3 relating to section 1510 the following: 

‘‘1510A. Obstruction of the enforcement of the laws of the United States.’’. 

Æ 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-751
In Re: DEREK MARQUIS FLEMING, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-97-660-5) Submitted: November 25, 1997 Decided: December 11, 1997 Before HALL, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derek Marquis Fleming, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Derek Marquis Fleming has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court to compel the district court to expedite its consideration of his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994), or to order respondent to file a response. The granting of a writof mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used in extraordinary circumstances. See In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). A petitioner must show that he has a clear right to the relief sought, that the respondent has a clear duty to perform the act requestedby petitioner, and that there is no other adequate remedy available. See In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Fleming has failed to make the requisite showing for such extraordinary relief. Our review of the district court docket sheet discloses that there has been no undue delay in considering Fleming's § 2241 petition. Although we grant Fleming's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6041 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6041

    To designate a mountain ridge in the State of Montana as ``B-47 
                                Ridge''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 2018

Mr. Gianforte introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To designate a mountain ridge in the State of Montana as ``B-47 
                                Ridge''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``B-47 Ridge Designation Act''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF B-47 RIDGE, MONTANA.

    (a) Designation.--
            (1) In general.--The unnamed mountain ridge located at 
        4514'40.89"N, 11043'38.75"W that runs south and west of 
        Emigrant Peak in the Absaroka Range in the State of Montana, 
        which is the approximate site of a crash of a B-47, shall be 
        known and designated as ``B-47 Ridge''.
            (2) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
        document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
        ridge described in paragraph (1) shall be deemed to be a 
        reference to ``B-47 Ridge''.
    (b) Authorization for Plaque.--
            (1) In general.--A plaque that memorializes the crash of 
        the B-47 (including denoting the names of the victims of the 
        crash) may be installed on B-47 Ridge.
            (2) Funding.--No Federal funds may be used to design, 
        procure, install, or maintain the plaque authorized under 
        paragraph (1).
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Propell Corporation (the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Edward L. Bernstein, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.  /s/ Edward L. BernsteinEdward L. Bernstein
President, Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Executive & Principal Financial Officer)  November 23, 2009
EXHIBIT
32.1
  Certification
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
 as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of
2002
  In
connection with the Quarterly Report of GMS Capital Corp.. (the “Company”) on
Form 10–Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George Metrakos,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his
knowledge, that:
  1.      
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  2.      
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
  /s/
      George MetrakosGeorge
      Metrakos
                    Chief
      Executive Officer
 
 Dated:  February 8,
2010
Exhibit 32.2





Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of China Media Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ying Xue, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:  December 14, 2009








By:       /s/ Ying Xue


Ying Xue


Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Diligent Board Member Services, Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Alessandro Sodi, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 1.
                The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
  2.
                The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
 
 Date:
November 8, 2010
 
 /s/ Alessandro SodiAlessandro
      SodiChief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer)
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1418

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 8, 1999

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

AN ACT

To provide for the holding of court at Natchez, Mississippi,

in the same manner as court is held at Vicksburg, Mississippi, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1418 RFH

1 SECTION 1. HOLDING OF COURT AT NATCHEZ, MISSISSIPPI.

2 Section 104(b)(3) of title 28, United States Code, is

3 amended in the second sentence by striking all beginning

4 with the colon through ‘‘United States’’.

Passed the Senate November 5, 1999.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.